1. I'm guessing they sort of go with the 'shall not be infringed' part of that.

6. It is possible to logically say that the main clause is, "A well regulated militia...shall not be

infringed" and the other two clauses are subordinates modifying that main clause.

I am told that someone has legally decided that that 3rd comma, in the original, is not there, but I also hear that our attitude toward this and the whole Constitution is a living process which adapts to our needs, rather than oppresses us with absolutist tendencies toward fascism (from whatever political direction) that was never intended in the first place, so if it can be decided that that 3rd comma isn't there, it can also be decided that it is there.

7. I'm not sure the careful parsing matters...they just need something to which they can cling

And relatively recent SCOTUS rulings make looking at critical editions of the amendment or BOR sort of moot.

In my life we've gone from a nation that required shotguns transported in cars to be in their cases (so people couldn't easily hunt from cars...which means on or near roads...to a nation where you can strap on your AR-15 as an accessory for going to the Mall.

15. Well, there are no perfect words, that means the ability to think is paramount. Thinking is NOT what

we have going on here, ergo, people are afraid of what's happening and they indulge knee-jerk responses for what they mistakenly assume is the "most effective" response, guns. Fear begets fear and the inevitable result is violence. Violence is the maximum oppressor and it is being claimed as a unilateral privilege to engage in certain activities against our collective representation, right or wrong, the government, without even asking anyone else whether we want that sort of thing to happen or not. FACT: there are people who express the intention of killing for guns, NOT any of the secondary issues that may or may not be mentioned, but killing for the means to assert WHATEVER with a gun. period. That is tyranny. Flawed though it may be, I at least have some modicum of influence, and if I work hard enough even actual control, over my government. I have NO control over militias who will kill for the means to assert whatever WITH A GUN.

It's also interesting that gunarians insist the Constitution means this or that AND they almost always delete any reference to "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment.

11. This is always the silliest argument...I just don't get how people think like this...

based on commas. Some goofy shit right there.

And IF they do for soem reason, it is just way too easy to see how the amendment was originally presented & modified before ratification to see it means just what it says - well regulated militias are necessary, so the right to arms shall not be infringed.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
James Madison 1789

17. So YOU may add to the Constitution AND subtract from it, but no one else may do the same. PRIVILEGE

is what that is called. Privilege is not earned; it is assumed by some type of superiority historically associated with royalty. And, worse, yours is a royalty that asserts itself at the point of guns.

NO KINGS!!!

- end of "conversation" - . . . because I don't waste my time on royal lackeys.

19. Easy, don't go away mad. I was not adding or subtracting, I was rehashing what it says using

simple terms that could be easily understood to see it means just what it says...or so I thought.

You were trying to re-interpret it to mean something totally different, because of a comma.

But you are right, just because I think it is silly doesn't mean it is.

For you, I'll quote the actual amendment so we can re-read it:

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

or if it makes you feel better:

As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

They both STILL mean the same thing:

well regulated militias are necessary, so the right to arms shall not be infringed
OR
because a well regulated militia is required to secure freedom, the people shall always have the right to keep and bear arms
etc. etc.

27. Not sure what you are saying or asking - can you clarify? nt

26. I would say that whole slave thing was a BIG one.

Article 1, Section 2
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Article 1 Section. 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

20. Actually, to legal scholars, including supreme court justices,

the silly shit does matter.

The people on the street looking for an argument hold an opinion similar to your in some respects. They don't care about commas and the subordination of clauses to major clauses. They just want some words that they an believe back up their belief

23. Judges are like accountants, their figures don't lie, but they surely do figuring.

Scalia is one of the worst hypocrites in that respect. He is forever saying that the law should be considered as it is written and then he picks and chooses his way through it to come up with some novel very conservative interpretation.

32. My adding 'so' while paraphrasing the wording of the 2nd did NOT change the intent.

The intent is and always has been the same. And what good is it to try to explain something if all we do is just type exactly what everyone knows it says and say "see, I told you"???

Anyway...
In all the debates over the proposed amendments, none of the founders had any problem knowing how to read this article. They argued much over religious exemptions, but very little over the notion that well regulated militias were necessary. The Militia were composed of the people. The people keeping and bearing arms were the Militias.

Mr. Gerry: objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one....It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security..."

Mr. Scott: objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army.

You want to argue what exactly is meant by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" have at it, but there is NO doubt that that right is what was secured, and NO doubt why...because the militias were necessary. {and Congress now had power on how they would be regulated, including how they would be armed...the people had to be sure they wouldn't be DISarmed.}

Mr Gerry: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this {religious exemtion} clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

3. Huge K&R!

4. Simple ...

"Well Regulated" modifes the term "militia" and was not intended to restrict the rest of the amendment. The NRA and various 2nd amenders deny being a part of any militia; ergo, the term does not apply to them ...

31. The amendment calls for a well regulated militia. It doesn't say an optional regulated militia.

So why can't the states or the fedgov require all gun owners to report to regular militia checks and inspections? If your gun doesn't pass spec for use in the militia, then you don't have a right to own it. And if the state is in charge of the militia, doesn't this amendment require the states to have a well regulated one or be in breach of the constitution (not that it would get in the way of the wingnut call for nullification)?

I know it sounds like I'm splitting hairs, too, but that's what this argument always devolves to.

33. I agree with your points, especially the 2nd. The States WERE SUPPOSED

to be in charge of the Militias. Only the Militia of the Several States were assigned very specific very vital roles in the Constitution. Only the Militias of the Several States were to be called forth in service of the United States. Those are the militias that were necessary.

But because the Congress was given the power to organize, arm and discipline them, they went a little...over-board (usurped power?) and recreated the State Militias as the federally controlled and armed and funded National Guard...a reserve for the HUGE standing army!!! BUT the people's respresentatives wrote the laws, apparently with little compliant, so..

As for the inspections - sure - why not? Have a Militia Act that once again enrolls the people in the Militias. BUT be aware, if the Militia takes on that great a roll again, then the arms we must keep and bear would be full grade military arms - M-16s, M-4s, M-9s etc.

35. I know I know. I love the historical aspect though! But bottom line, (IMHO)

the Dick Act obsoleted the Constitutional Militias with creation of the guard. The people have no issue maitaining a large standing army (well - generally). The intent of the second was to secure the people's right and duty to serve in the State Militias, which no longer exist. It seems to me that the right to keep and bear arms as enumerated in the 2nd is obsolete, as the reason given for securing it no longer exists.

Does a right to arms exist outside the militia purpose? Sure...but there is no reason that right isn't subject to restrictions.

28. Well-regulated was a well-known term to the Founding Fathers

See Federalist Paper #29. It means, paraphrased, "trained like an army".

F.P. #29 also expounds upon the dangers & chaos a bunch of untrained gun-owning yahoos would present. Very apt for the present day, and a clear indication that the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with the way the NRA or the Scalia Kangaroo Kourt defines it.

29. It's puzzling to me

that the SCOTUS which gave us the "individual rights" decision in Heller and is worshiped by the Gungeon crowd, is the same SCOTUS that gave us GWB in Florida, and Citizens United.

The only conclusion that I can draw from this observation is that the Gungeoneers who celebrate the overturning of around 100 years of sensible gun laws with Heller, also voted for Dubya, and agree with "corporations are people."